Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)

Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54

Posts: 19,743

Re: Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polux

That is offensive, not for me but for all the ones that prefer that types of boats that you decided to call my fantasy teenage boats. I am not a teenage having more than 60 years of age and I sail a boat that you call my teenager fantasy. The boat is real, not a fantasy and all those boats (the several boats you call teenage fantasy boats) are owned and cruised by many sailors.

What you call teenage fantasy boat goes from fast performance cruisers like the Salona 60 or the Solaris 58 to boats like the aluminium Cigale 16, the aluminium adventure 55, the Pogo 50.

Some of those boats would do much better than your boat on those circunstances. Some are just better upwind boats, with finer entries, more power and stability. They would slice through the waves more effortlessly and comfortably than your main market cruiser.

Some years ago upwind with nasty 3 to 4m short period waves on a F6/7 I rapidly catched up a Moody 425, passing him doing at least 1k better, pounding less and pointing higher. The guy seems to be pissed with that, took the jib out, stayed on the mainsail and passed to motorsailing. That was better and he made better speed pointing higher...but I was still faster sailing (I have posted about this already some time ago). That's real information about the comparative upwind performance with waves and wind between a boat with a hull like yours and a hull of a maximized upwind performance cruiser (about the same size).

And since you seem to have the habit to compare the performance of my 41ft boat with your 54ft boat, I am not saying that my boat would go better on those conditions but that an upwind maximized performance cruiser the length of your boat, like the Solaris or a Swan 60 , would do better, not withstanding you call them fantasy teenage sailboats.

Your idea that an old double ender would do better than yours makes no sense. Your boat is more powerfull, the older boat would be making at least 1 to 2 k less and would be pitching a lot. If you like to go slower and rock a lot, than that's the boat for you ;-)

I have no problem with your particular ideas regarding what is the right cruiser for you but I have a problem with you considering that many sailboats that are used to cruise extensively by sailors with more contemporary tastes than yours are Just my "teenage fantasy boats". Statements like that are just odd and show a self centered vision of reality. The reality (not yours) show otherwise.

Sorry -- I expressed myself stupidly, and you were right to call me on it.

I did not at all mean, what you understood.

I was referring to the concept boats you've posted, and I actually didn't mean any disrespect even to those -- experimentation is vital of course to trying to find improvements, and all of those boats are interesting. I was just thinking with amusement what it would have been being out in that gale in one of them -- that was the idea I was trying to express. I was not referring to Salona 60 etc., which are certainly not fantasy boats, but are boats designed for high performance in certain conditions (though I would certainly not have wanted to be one of those, either).

I have always, on the contrary, always argued that different boat designs suit different purposes, and would never begrudge a man his own choice of boats. It's fantastic that people try different things, and we all gain from their experiments, and no less from the ones which don't work out.

My big disagreement with you -- and I'm sure we can discuss it like gentlemen, as we generally have, even if we both get caught up in enthusiasm sometimes -- is that you believe that the different choices people make in boat design boil down to a one-dimensional "more contemporary" and "obsolete" continuum. In my opinion, this is totally wrong, and in my opinion, you deeply confuse fashion with progress, but I won't repeat all the things which have been said already.

Concerning what would have been the right boat for my last passage -- you are not right that my boat would have been better than a well designed full keel boat. Let's drill into that, shall we?

Full keel boats are obsolete -- we can agree about that. Only a very tiny number are made any more. The reasons for that are -- they have a lot of wetted surface, so are slow; they have poor upwind performance; they cannot be maneuvered well in harbors; but probably most importantly -- they are expensive to make. So the disadvantages are huge, and the advantages of that design are rarely needed by people who buy boats, so it doesn't make any sense to make them -- hence you can say they're obsolete.

But a well designed, heavy full keel boat would have handled much better than mine on my last passage. My boat is, as you say, more powerful -- that is, more righting moment allowing the boat to stand up to more sail, plus lighter, and with far less wetted surface. But in that gale, no one needed that kind of "power". Keeping boat speed up is really important when dealing with steep waves, so power is not irrelevant -- stability enough to carry a certain amount of sail, sure. So not every full keel boat would work -- I would not for example want a heavy motor sailer with shallow draft. But a proper sailing heavy double-ender smashes through those waves with momentum, and requires less power to overcome them, even if it requires more power to overcome the drag from wetted surface. Then the depth of the hull profile -- nothing flat anywhere, on such a hull -- would greatly reduce pounding. The narrow stern would greatly reduce the pitching-down, so there would be much better balance between pitching forces up and down. The long overhanging bows with a lot of flare would provide tons of buoyancy at the last moments when a really bad wave is trying to get onto your deck, while giving less pitching in smaller waves -- the progressive spring effect of raked and flared bows, which my boat has very little of, unfortunately.

Also -- the mass of a heavy, deep draft double-ender reduces the frequency of boat motion, reduces the short sharp accelerations from that sea state -- greatly increasing comfort. I agree that lighter is better in 97% of situations, but boy, oh boy -- my last passage was definitely one of the 3% situations.

So the advantages of my boat are all gone in those conditions, and the heavy double ender -- assuming it is well designed with a good rig, proper balance and keel (not all of them have this) -- really comes into its own with much better, safer motion.

If I may continue the criticism of my own boat -- Bill Dixon, who is a great designer but certainly not the best in the world, said about my boat that he had made a "60 footer with short ends". That really sums up in one sentence what is wrong with my boat, and what is wrong with most "contemporary" designs, and in recent years many designers have gone even much further with this idea than Dixon did with my boat. What Dixon did was chop off the ends of the boat to fit it into a shorter package, and jammed in as much accommodation as he could, crowding out technical space, and buoyancy in the needed places, especially at the bow. He did make the boat quite light for a boat of this type, immensely strong, and gave her an excellent rig, so she is quite a decent sailing boat. But the bow of my boat does not have enough rake and not enough flare, and the boat is altogether too short for her volume, with the result that although she is far more capable in really strong conditions than nearly any smaller boat, she is not nearly as capable as she could be. If this were not the case, I would not be casting about for a new boat.

But those were the compromises Dixon made, to reach the market he was aiming at, so I don't blame him. Oyster and other makers made the same compromises, and this hull form and configuration is still very popular and new designs continue to be made. It's suitable for most sailors, but not so good for me.

And by the way, your discussion about the Moody 425 is not at all relevant to any of this. That's a very different hull form with very long shallow fin keel, almost full keel, with no bulb -- an '80's design. That's a hull form very much like my last boat, a Pearson 365, which was a pig to sail, very slow and unweatherly, but very seakindly and very seaworthy for her size. That's yet a different set of compromises with a different set of pluses and minuses. You can believe that in any really strong conditions, that boat would be much better than yours, but in anything less than F8, your boat would be better in every way and certainly much more lively to sail. I would definitely choose your boat (which is a particularly nice design of its type) over an old Moody 425, if forced to choose. Your boat actually has a hull form very much like my boat does, and that's a pretty decent compromise for most people. I would not call your boat obsolete at all, and I doubt that you would be nearly as happy to change your boat to a real "wedgie", as you think.

OK, so back to the topic. Concerning your idea of "sailing efficiency" -- in my opinion, you have a simplistic view of this which misses the complex tradeoffs involved. The other mistake you make is that you believe marketing BS that it's all about "sailing efficiency", when only a few genuine performance boats (like Pogo and Salona 60) really even use the advantages of this hull form type, whereas others (Hanse, Dehler's Moodys, etc.) are just making the boat look cool, cheap to build, and commodious, without any thought about "sailing efficiency" at all.

The “wedgie” form which you like so much – sharp, very fine plumb bow, flat aft sections, very wide stern – is not “more efficient” in any universal or even broad way. Such a hull form has several advantages and several big disadvantages, and “contemporary” design has not discovered any new laws of hydrodynamics, which overcome these disadvantages.

One advantage of such hulls is that they give far more form stability, giving more initial stability, allowing much more sail to be carried – up to certain point. I agree that for very many sailors, at least those who care a lot about speed, this is a very big advantage.

Another advantage of “wedgie” hulls is that the enormous buoyancy and flat sections aft prevent squatting as the hull reaches hull speed, making it much easier to break through hull speed. This works very well in combination with a sharp bow which does not waste energy on pitching up. Some extreme wedgie hulls, like the Pogos, are actually planning hulls and can be sailed beyond hull speed on any point of sail. This is very sportive and I imagine (not having actually sailed a Pogo) an enormous amount of fun. If I could imagine having two boats (almost as stupid as having two wives), the second might well be the small Pogo (or on the contrary, a nice bilge keeler for sailing up the beautiful estuaries of the English Channel). What better boat for a high speed weekend blast across the Channel for oysters at St. Vaast in the fall, than the small Pogo? With the right weather, of course.

But this whole formula is optimized for certain conditions – as all hull forms are, since no hull form has ever been invented which is optimal for all conditions and uses. The sharp bow and huge buoyancy aft is terrible in heavy conditions and especially with steep waves, greatly increasing the wetness of the deck and tendency to pitchpole. The fact that Vendee Globe racers deal with this disadvantage even in the Southern Ocean, and that some very hard core cruisers will do it even in very hard conditions, does not mean that all, most, or even many cruisers will be willing to, because it is a huge disadvantage.

The sharp bow and lack of pitching mitigate pounding in milder conditions, but the overall flatness of the forefoot, on the other hand, exacerbates pounding, and once you get to a certain sea state, the hull form can no longer prevent the forefoot coming completely out of the water, to be smashed back into the sea, and at that point the only thing that matters is the flatness of the forefoot, strength of the hull, resistance to flexing and resonance on repeated impact. A boat which has a flat forefoot and, on top of that, is light and not too strongly built, is just terrible in these conditions.

Yet another disadvantage of this formula is that it is not too good for sailing upwind.

For coastal cruising where you can pick your weather, these disadvantages are not too bad, and you can have a lot of fun surfing with huge amounts of sail up. For shorter passages, the higher frequency motion of a lighter boat won’t disturb enough to detract from the fun.

For stronger conditions and higher latitudes, where you can’t pick your weather, your priorities will be very different.

And of course, different sailors will make different choices, even for the same use – like long distance adventure cruising. Some will definitely prefer the heavy double ender. I would not, because of the great disadvantages for sailing in less than gale conditions, and I like to sail fast. Others will give up a lot of other qualities in favor of pure speed. Others will strike a balance. Different hull forms cater to these different preferences, and these preferences are not a matter of some people having seen the light of modernity (i.e. read the latest glossy magazine without any skepticism ), and others who are just too ignorant to see the one true path into the future.

This whole discussion reminds me a little of Marxism – which holds that forms of governance evolve INEVITABLY from more primitive to more advanced forms, according to only one true path, which leads INEVITABLY in only one direction – through Socialism to the withering away of the state, in Communism. Marx got this from Hegel. Anyone who doesn’t see the light is a reactionary. Capitalism is an "obsolete" form, which only stupid people can believe in -- people who haven't "seen the light" and who don't understand the "one true path" towards the one true, shining future, which leaves capitalism and democracy in the "dust bin of history". But in fact, Marx got it fundamentally wrong – truth is much harder to find, there is no one true path, and every step of real progress requires a dozen false steps, and occurs much more slowly, and there will never be universal agreement, on matters of politics.

Great post. Agree completely- the use of the term "state of the art" by Polux is so misleading and reflects his opinion, not the actual facts of boat design. And other than lightness, that which makes a hull fast and comfortable downwind often makes it slower and uncomfortable upwind, and vice versa. Compromises abound. And even though my boat is better in way than my old deep draft full keeler due to underbody advances, there have been a few times when I would have wanted that old hull shape with deep ekeel, sharp v bow, slack bilges, etc- you simply couldn't make the hull pound.
On my most recent charter of a "wedgie" bavaria 46 which polux would consider state of the art, the pounding upwind in chop was tremendous, the speed was moderate, and strangely enough 😀downwind broad reaching in 20 knots there was no planing. But the interior and cockpit were tremendous, which is really where the "state of the art" in new cruising boat design resides.

I was lucky to meet Rolf and Debra on Northern light when they were in Tassie. Watching them sail her was impressive, and so were their passage times. They really new how to get that old girl humming, regularly reeling off 200 mile days.

Rolf had a theory about kinetic energy being important in big seas so he drove her hard in rough conditions, which the 5mm steel hull could easily absorb.

She had a very big rig, and a wing/scheel shoe rolf designed on the keel that reduced pitching and broaching, and decreased leeway.

Lovely people and its well worth reading their books "northern light","Time on ice" and the "pearls around white continent" series here.

So a well sailed and set up long keeles double ender can do very well.

I love the way a heavy boat like her sails as long as they have a decent sized rig. Many of the critisisms of heavy displacement boats can be fixed with a big enough rig.

It is hard to get enough sail on a heavy boat with a bermudian rig unless you use big bowsprits and boomkins. Much easier with a proper gaff rig to get the power they need.

Anyway I chose a lighter boat partly so I could manage it with a much more modest sailplan, and all inboard. And her 8 tonnes and fin keel makes berthing much easier short handed.

One thing I have learnt over the years is that there are good examples of each boat type, and bad examples. Its easy to sail a bad example and think they are all bad, and vice verca. So the fact that northern light sails so well is not just about the hull shape, its all the little tweaks, the stowage, the weight of the rig, the windage, the sails, and the helmsman, or helmswomans feel for the boat.

So its very hard to make generalisations about boat design, because often its not the type, but all the small details that really make the boat work.

I've now given up getting to dogmatic about it all. Once upon a time I was convinced a certain style or type of boat was better than another. Now I am not so sure, I kind of like them all, and enjoy finding the strengths and weaknesses of each individual boat.

But even then there are so many variables that my opinion of a boat is often colored by irrelevant factors like the weather we had, and how well I liked sailing with the crew.

Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)

Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54

Posts: 19,743

Re: Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I was lucky to meet Rolf and Debra on Northern light when they were in Tassie. Watching them sail her was impressive, and so were their passage times. They really new how to get that old girl humming, regularly reeling off 200 mile days.

Rolf had a theory about kinetic energy being important in big seas so he drove her hard in rough conditions, which the 5mm steel hull could easily absorb.

She had a very big rig, and a wing/scheel shoe rolf designed on the keel that reduced pitching and broaching, and decreased leeway.

Lovely people and its well worth reading their books "northern light","Time on ice" and the "pearls around white continent" series here.

So a well sailed and set up long keeles double ender can do very well.

I love the way a heavy boat like her sails as long as they have a decent sized rig. Many of the critisisms of heavy displacement boats can be fixed with a big enough rig.

It is hard to get enough sail on a heavy boat with a bermudian rig unless you use big bowsprits and boomkins. Much easier with a proper gaff rig to get the power they need.

Anyway I chose a lighter boat partly so I could manage it with a much more modest sailplan, and all inboard. And her 8 tonnes and fin keel makes berthing much easier short handed.

One thing I have learnt over the years is that there are good examples of each boat type, and bad examples. Its easy to sail a bad example and think they are all bad, and vice verca. So the fact that northern light sails so well is not just about the hull shape, its all the little tweaks, the stowage, the weight of the rig, the windage, the sails, and the helmsman, or helmswomans feel for the boat.

So its very hard to make generalisations about boat design, because often its not the type, but all the small details that really make the boat work.

I've now given up getting to dogmatic about it all. Once upon a time I was convinced a certain style or type of boat was better than another. Now I am not so sure, I kind of like them all, and enjoy finding the strengths and weaknesses of each individual boat.

But even then there are so many variables that my opinion of a boat is often colored by irrelevant factors like the weather we had, and how well I liked sailing with the crew.

That's a very interesting post, full of good observations

So many tradeoffs in boat design. The big rig needed on a heavy boat is a real disadvantage, because it brings with it big windage, which is harmful in strong weather.

But "kinetic energy" is absolutely on point -- you need momentum to get through heavy seas and there's nothing like a heavy boat, which has been gotten up to speed, for that. Weight is bad for so many things in sailing, but not for heavy weather, and for this.

So it's a hard tradeoff. One way which designers deal with this tradeoff is by making boats bigger. A larger boat with a lighter D/L, will be as seaworthy or more seaworthy than a smaller, heavier boat. I have a theory (which may be wrong) that one part of seaworthiness (and good motion, etc.) is a direct, linear function of the tonnage of the vessel, irrespective of length, so a 20 ton vessel which is 60 feet long -- which is a light and fast boat -- will have similar seaworthiness to a 20 ton boat which is 40 feet long -- which is a real heavyweight, and will be slow.

So my boat for example uses her length to give seaworthiness equal to smaller boats which are much heavier. But seaworthiness is still being traded for speed, and my last passage, this particular trade was not favorable.

A heavy double-ender with a deep draft full keel, even better with a gaff rig, or a ketch, is a magnificent approach to weather like what I just went through, going like a freight train through the chop, without any pounding and without the jerky, seasick-inducing motion of a lighter boat. Also tracking like a freight train which greatly eases the job of the helmsman or pilot. Such boats have been made for a hundred years and more, and even they are not "obsolete", for this particular use -- no one has yet invented anything better for such weather.

I don't know if I have mentioned it here, but I had a 52 mile informal race upwind with none other than Jolie Brise, the 100+ year old gaffer which won the very first Fastnet in the 1920's, in a F7 (at one point), from Weymouth to Southampton. Now my boat is no slouch, especially in stronger conditions, and I eat 40 to 50 foot racer-cruisers, including Wedgies, for lunch, and did so even with my old sails, notwithstanding the ratings, in anything except light wind conditions. (Some here might recall that a few months ago, I challenged Paolo to a race along the Fastnet course in October for stakes of 10k euros against dinner at the RORC -- he wisely declined ). But that magnificent old bitch Jolie Brise, despite her shorter waterline and huge wetted surface, despite her upwind-inefficient long keel, went like a bat out of hell -- I could not get past her for miles and miles and miles despite my lead bulb keel, much more efficient underbody, etc. etc. She tacked with me degree for degree, and kept up a huge pace. I did finally get past her at the Needles, but only by the skin of my teeth. In strong weather, even a F7 which is not too bad in my boat, there really isn't anything better than an old deep draft, long keel, wooden gaffer. The sail area is spread out horizontally, so losing the aspect ratio advantage, but requiring much less righting motion to carry a great press of canvas. We have really not made all that much progress in boat design since those days, and certainly not even 1/1000th as much as Paolo imagines. There's hardly anything really new, under the sun.

I was lucky to meet Rolf and Debra on Northern light when they were in Tassie. Watching them sail her was impressive, and so were their passage times. They really new how to get that old girl humming, regularly reeling off 200 mile days.

Rolf had a theory about kinetic energy being important in big seas so he drove her hard in rough conditions, which the 5mm steel hull could easily absorb.

She had a very big rig, and a wing/scheel shoe rolf designed on the keel that reduced pitching and broaching, and decreased leeway.

Lovely people and its well worth reading their books "northern light","Time on ice" and the "pearls around white continent" series here.

So a well sailed and set up long keeles double ender can do very well.

I love the way a heavy boat like her sails as long as they have a decent sized rig. Many of the critisisms of heavy displacement boats can be fixed with a big enough rig.

It is hard to get enough sail on a heavy boat with a bermudian rig unless you use big bowsprits and boomkins. Much easier with a proper gaff rig to get the power they need.

Anyway I chose a lighter boat partly so I could manage it with a much more modest sailplan, and all inboard. And her 8 tonnes and fin keel makes berthing much easier short handed.

One thing I have learnt over the years is that there are good examples of each boat type, and bad examples. Its easy to sail a bad example and think they are all bad, and vice verca. So the fact that northern light sails so well is not just about the hull shape, its all the little tweaks, the stowage, the weight of the rig, the windage, the sails, and the helmsman, or helmswomans feel for the boat.

So its very hard to make generalisations about boat design, because often its not the type, but all the small details that really make the boat work.

I've now given up getting to dogmatic about it all. Once upon a time I was convinced a certain style or type of boat was better than another. Now I am not so sure, I kind of like them all, and enjoy finding the strengths and weaknesses of each individual boat.

But even then there are so many variables that my opinion of a boat is often colored by irrelevant factors like the weather we had, and how well I liked sailing with the crew.

I cant agree more with you remind me a Abeking &Rassmusen 61 ft double ender cutter rig with a decent mast to carry lots of canvas , built in steel and with a weight close to 30 tons able to fly in the tradewinds at 8 to 9 knts average , easy to reef down thanks to Harkengear and a real freaking train in gales,,, the clasic moto that heavy full keel boats are slow and boring its simple not true....

Sorry -- I expressed myself stupidly, and you were right to call me on it.

I did not at all mean, what you understood.

I was referring to the concept boats you've posted, and I actually didn't mean any disrespect even to those -- experimentation is vital of course to trying to find improvements, and all of those boats are interesting. I was just thinking with amusement what it would have been being out in that gale in one of them -- that was the idea I was trying to express. I was not referring to Salona 60 etc., which are certainly not fantasy boats, but are boats designed for high performance in certain conditions (though I would certainly not have wanted to be one of those, either).

I have always, on the contrary, always argued that different boat designs suit different purposes, and would never begrudge a man his own choice of boats. It's fantastic that people try different things, and we all gain from their experiments, and no less from the ones which don't work out.

My big disagreement with you -- and I'm sure we can discuss it like gentlemen, as we generally have, even if we both get caught up in enthusiasm sometimes -- is that you believe that the different choices people make in boat design boil down to a one-dimensional "more contemporary" and "obsolete" continuum. In my opinion, this is totally wrong, and in my opinion, you deeply confuse fashion with progress, but I won't repeat all the things which have been said already.

Concerning what would have been the right boat for my last passage -- you are not right that my boat would have been better than a well designed full keel boat. Let's drill into that, shall we?

Full keel boats are obsolete -- we can agree about that. Only a very tiny number are made any more. The reasons for that are -- they have a lot of wetted surface, so are slow; they have poor upwind performance; they cannot be maneuvered well in harbors; but probably most importantly -- they are expensive to make. So the disadvantages are huge, and the advantages of that design are rarely needed by people who buy boats, so it doesn't make any sense to make them -- hence you can say they're obsolete.

But a well designed, heavy full keel boat would have handled much better than mine on my last passage. My boat is, as you say, more powerful -- that is, more righting moment allowing the boat to stand up to more sail, plus lighter, and with far less wetted surface. But in that gale, no one needed that kind of "power". Keeping boat speed up is really important when dealing with steep waves, so power is not irrelevant -- stability enough to carry a certain amount of sail, sure. So not every full keel boat would work -- I would not for example want a heavy motor sailer with shallow draft. But a proper sailing heavy double-ender smashes through those waves with momentum, and requires less power to overcome them, even if it requires more power to overcome the drag from wetted surface. Then the depth of the hull profile -- nothing flat anywhere, on such a hull -- would greatly reduce pounding. The narrow stern would greatly reduce the pitching-down, so there would be much better balance between pitching forces up and down. The long overhanging bows with a lot of flare would provide tons of buoyancy at the last moments when a really bad wave is trying to get onto your deck, while giving less pitching in smaller waves -- the progressive spring effect of raked and flared bows, which my boat has very little of, unfortunately.

Also -- the mass of a heavy, deep draft double-ender reduces the frequency of boat motion, reduces the short sharp accelerations from that sea state -- greatly increasing comfort. I agree that lighter is better in 97% of situations, but boy, oh boy -- my last passage was definitely one of the 3% situations.

So the advantages of my boat are all gone in those conditions, and the heavy double ender -- assuming it is well designed with a good rig, proper balance and keel (not all of them have this) -- really comes into its own with much better, safer motion.

If I may continue the criticism of my own boat -- Bill Dixon, who is a great designer but certainly not the best in the world, said about my boat that he had made a "60 footer with short ends". That really sums up in one sentence what is wrong with my boat, and what is wrong with most "contemporary" designs, and in recent years many designers have gone even much further with this idea than Dixon did with my boat. What Dixon did was chop off the ends of the boat to fit it into a shorter package, and jammed in as much accommodation as he could, crowding out technical space, and buoyancy in the needed places, especially at the bow. He did make the boat quite light for a boat of this type, immensely strong, and gave her an excellent rig, so she is quite a decent sailing boat. But the bow of my boat does not have enough rake and not enough flare, and the boat is altogether too short for her volume, with the result that although she is far more capable in really strong conditions than nearly any smaller boat, she is not nearly as capable as she could be. If this were not the case, I would not be casting about for a new boat.

But those were the compromises Dixon made, to reach the market he was aiming at, so I don't blame him. Oyster and other makers made the same compromises, and this hull form and configuration is still very popular and new designs continue to be made. It's suitable for most sailors, but not so good for me.

And by the way, your discussion about the Moody 425 is not at all relevant to any of this. That's a very different hull form with very long shallow fin keel, almost full keel, with no bulb -- an '80's design. That's a hull form very much like my last boat, a Pearson 365, which was a pig to sail, very slow and unweatherly, but very seakindly and very seaworthy for her size. That's yet a different set of compromises with a different set of pluses and minuses. You can believe that in any really strong conditions, that boat would be much better than yours, but in anything less than F8, your boat would be better in every way and certainly much more lively to sail. I would definitely choose your boat (which is a particularly nice design of its type) over an old Moody 425, if forced to choose. Your boat actually has a hull form very much like my boat does, and that's a pretty decent compromise for most people. I would not call your boat obsolete at all, and I doubt that you would be nearly as happy to change your boat to a real "wedgie", as you think.

OK, so back to the topic. Concerning your idea of "sailing efficiency" -- in my opinion, you have a simplistic view of this which misses the complex tradeoffs involved. The other mistake you make is that you believe marketing BS that it's all about "sailing efficiency", when only a few genuine performance boats (like Pogo and Salona 60) really even use the advantages of this hull form type, whereas others (Hanse, Dehler's Moodys, etc.) are just making the boat look cool, cheap to build, and commodious, without any thought about "sailing efficiency" at all.

The “wedgie” form which you like so much – sharp, very fine plumb bow, flat aft sections, very wide stern – is not “more efficient” in any universal or even broad way. Such a hull form has several advantages and several big disadvantages, and “contemporary” design has not discovered any new laws of hydrodynamics, which overcome these disadvantages.

One advantage of such hulls is that they give far more form stability, giving more initial stability, allowing much more sail to be carried – up to certain point. I agree that for very many sailors, at least those who care a lot about speed, this is a very big advantage.

Another advantage of “wedgie” hulls is that the enormous buoyancy and flat sections aft prevent squatting as the hull reaches hull speed, making it much easier to break through hull speed. This works very well in combination with a sharp bow which does not waste energy on pitching up. Some extreme wedgie hulls, like the Pogos, are actually planning hulls and can be sailed beyond hull speed on any point of sail. This is very sportive and I imagine (not having actually sailed a Pogo) an enormous amount of fun. If I could imagine having two boats (almost as stupid as having two wives), the second might well be the small Pogo (or on the contrary, a nice bilge keeler for sailing up the beautiful estuaries of the English Channel). What better boat for a high speed weekend blast across the Channel for oysters at St. Vaast in the fall, than the small Pogo? With the right weather, of course.

But this whole formula is optimized for certain conditions – as all hull forms are, since no hull form has ever been invented which is optimal for all conditions and uses. The sharp bow and huge buoyancy aft is terrible in heavy conditions and especially with steep waves, greatly increasing the wetness of the deck and tendency to pitchpole. The fact that Vendee Globe racers deal with this disadvantage even in the Southern Ocean, and that some very hard core cruisers will do it even in very hard conditions, does not mean that all, most, or even many cruisers will be willing to, because it is a huge disadvantage.

The sharp bow and lack of pitching mitigate pounding in milder conditions, but the overall flatness of the forefoot, on the other hand, exacerbates pounding, and once you get to a certain sea state, the hull form can no longer prevent the forefoot coming completely out of the water, to be smashed back into the sea, and at that point the only thing that matters is the flatness of the forefoot, strength of the hull, resistance to flexing and resonance on repeated impact. A boat which has a flat forefoot and, on top of that, is light and not too strongly built, is just terrible in these conditions.

Yet another disadvantage of this formula is that it is not too good for sailing upwind.

For coastal cruising where you can pick your weather, these disadvantages are not too bad, and you can have a lot of fun surfing with huge amounts of sail up. For shorter passages, the higher frequency motion of a lighter boat won’t disturb enough to detract from the fun.

For stronger conditions and higher latitudes, where you can’t pick your weather, your priorities will be very different.

And of course, different sailors will make different choices, even for the same use – like long distance adventure cruising. Some will definitely prefer the heavy double ender. I would not, because of the great disadvantages for sailing in less than gale conditions, and I like to sail fast. Others will give up a lot of other qualities in favor of pure speed. Others will strike a balance. Different hull forms cater to these different preferences, and these preferences are not a matter of some people having seen the light of modernity (i.e. read the latest glossy magazine without any skepticism ), and others who are just too ignorant to see the one true path into the future.

This whole discussion reminds me a little of Marxism – which holds that forms of governance evolve INEVITABLY from more primitive to more advanced forms, according to only one true path, which leads INEVITABLY in only one direction – through Socialism to the withering away of the state, in Communism. Marx got this from Hegel. Anyone who doesn’t see the light is a reactionary. Capitalism is an "obsolete" form, which only stupid people can believe in -- people who haven't "seen the light" and who don't understand the "one true path" towards the one true, shining future, which leaves capitalism and democracy in the "dust bin of history". But in fact, Marx got it fundamentally wrong – truth is much harder to find, there is no one true path, and every step of real progress requires a dozen false steps, and occurs much more slowly, and there will never be universal agreement, on matters of politics.

Boat design is similar.

Very interesting thread to follow, please keep up the heat
Dockhead, please explain your opinion why Salona60 is so different than Hanse and Dehler's (Hanse's) Moody?

I'm pointing the pogo since you mention this boat in your list of voyage fancy sporty toys , then I dont see any factual reason to call this boat a real cruising boat , not by the open cockpit, not by the hull form who is really annoying going to weather.

It seems that you are one of the guys that don't get it: The Pogo is a real boat it has been sold in very considerable numbers to owners that use it mostly to do long range cruising.

It has nothing to do with my opinion but with the intentions regarding the boat program expressed by the designer and the use that it is given to the boat by the owners.

It is not certainly a boat for you but a boat pointed to a certain type of sailors that enjoy sailing far and sailing fast.

I know several Pogo owners and none is a teenager, neither a young men, probably because they are expensive boats. Pogo boat owners I know are close to 50 or over 50 years of age.

The Pogo was the one that started it (production boats) but now is not the only brand that is making this type of boats, several other brands are competing for that market that is increasing in size.

The Pogo and other competing boats are downwind maximized boats, designed to be solo sailed (and with a hull based on solo racers). They are maximized downwind because that is by far the most usual wind on the trade winds that are where voyages are normally made. They all can go quite well upwind even if not their strong point and not as comfortable has other types of boats on that point of sail, if a nasty sea is ahead.

It seems that you are one of the guys that don't get it: The Pogo is a real boat it has been sold in very considerable numbers to owners that use it mostly to do long range cruising.

It has nothing to do with my opinion but with the intentions regarding the boat program expressed by the designer and the use that it is given to the boat by the owners.

It is not certainly a boat for you but a boat pointed to a certain type of sailors that enjoy sailing far and sailing fast.

I know several Pogo owners and none is a teenager, neither a young men, probably because they are expensive boats. Pogo boat owners I know are close to 50 or over 50 years of age.

The Pogo was the one that started it (production boats) but now is not the only brand that is making this type of boats, several other brands are competing for that market that is increasing in size.

The Pogo and other competing boats are downwind maximized boats, designed to be solo sailed (and with a hull based on solo racers). They are maximized downwind because that is by far the most usual wind on the trade winds that are where voyages are normally made. They all can go quite well upwind even if not their strong point and not as comfortable has other types of boats on that point of sail, if a nasty sea is ahead.

You are very repetitive in your arguments, ok, I get 2 pogos in the shop last season, and both owners rounding the 30, teens? well heck no, but not old by any mean, you say all, optimized for solo downwind sailing, with Spartan interiors, huge open cockpits, a safety feature maybe for you, not for me, travelers in the middle of the cockpit, light rigs, unable to load unless you want to penalize the performance, tillers, uncomfortable cockpits unless your ass is solid rock , they are froking wet boats, yes wet boats, but no problem so far,,, the huge open cockpit drain the water well,, that's it, I mention the pogo simple because you mention the pogo as a voyage perfect boat for solo or duo sailors when you are focusing in a market segment dominated by Frenchs sailors and my friend the French sailors are well know by sailing in anything that float and go fast, obviously the Pogo is not a safe boat for a family doing a rtw but could be perfect for the solo French Banzai who don't give a rat arse if there is Jabsco toilet onboard or not.. My 2 cents.

Enjoyed reading about your race with the magnificent 'Jolie Brise' yes those old girls sure can get up and go if the are well sailed.

I would say youve glorified the ride of the heavy double ender a tad, There will still be a lot of bangs, crashes and thuds. The motion will be uncomfortable, but the bone shaking boat jarring pounding will be rare. The little sistership to Suhali was very slow upwind with lee helm and poor sails, but she was superb on a tight reach in lumpy stuff, and a dream down wind.

I think your displacement theory has some merit. I am still not sure of the role of beam, good or bad in a real blow. I am inclined to think it is often more negative than positive, but it depends too much on the total package. The little heavy boat has strength and an easy motion on her side, while the big light boat has speed and stability on her side. I think if well done either approach is fine. The big light boat is likely to be much more expensive to own than the smaller heavy boat.

I also think heavy displacement boats can be fast, at least while crossing oceans. My folks 20 tonne 45 foot gaff ketch is fast. She easily does 180-200 mile days in comfort during good downwind conditions. And with a SA/D around 20 she is no slouch in light stuff with the topsails set. Windward work is her bugbear with a shallow 5 foot long keel.

What I see modern technology has done is to update the sharpie and make them seagoing, due to improved materials. A lot of good tech was developed in the 70's to get boats going well to windward. Then in the 80's and 90's surfing under control, and on to planing at times. Around the 90's 00's planing more often till now the modern boats are almost semi planing hull shapes. It doesnt work for me with my windvane. And its hard to make planing and surfing work well on a livaboard cruiser.

...
My big disagreement with you -- and I'm sure we can discuss it like gentlemen, as we generally have, even if we both get caught up in enthusiasm sometimes -- is that you believe that the different choices people make in boat design boil down to a one-dimensional "more contemporary" and "obsolete" continuum. In my opinion, this is totally wrong, and in my opinion, you deeply confuse fashion with progress, but I won't repeat all the things which have been said already.

Expressing better that difference: Not and unidimensional continuum but a multi continuum regarding different boat programs. There is a state of the art in any type of vehicles, being them airplanes, cars or yachts. Fashion is only one of dimensions regarding state of the art and in what regards vehicules not the more important, as you seem to consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
And by the way, your discussion about the Moody 425 is not at all relevant to any of this. That's a very different hull form with very long shallow fin keel, almost full keel, with no bulb -- an '80's design. That's a hull form very much like my last boat, a Pearson 365, which was a pig to sail, very slow and unweatherly, but very seakindly and very seaworthy for her size.

The Moody 425 is far from being a full keller and has many of the characteristics you see as ideal for your new boat. The Moody 425 has nothing to do in design with the Pearson 365, that one closer to a full keel boat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your boat actually has a hull form very much like my boat does, and that's a pretty decent compromise for most people. I would not call your boat obsolete at all, and I doubt that you would be nearly as happy to change your boat to a real "wedgie", as you think. Comet 41 underbody -- a nice, intelligent, elegant design -- NOT a wedgie
...

Regarding the Comet 41s, it is a 2006 design, a contemporary one regarding the state of the art then in what regards that particular type of boats (performance cruiser with racing potential, ORC optimized) at the time and today not much outdated, but outdated anyway in what regards today's state of the art.
The Designer (Vallicelli), if had designed it today would have modified slightly several parts of the hull: It would have a more plumb bow, increasing the waterline (the Comet 38 that comes some years later has already that) the beam a bit more aft, increasing form stability and boat power, allowing for a better control downwind and a slightly more efficient keel with a torpedo (the more recent 41s come already with those keels).

The hull of the Comet 41s is not particularly "clever" and is not very different from several hulls from that type designed about 10 years ago, some a bit sooner, for instance the hull of the X43:
The Comet, a slightly more recent design, has just a slightly more evoluted transom, with slightly the beam more aft, but just a very small difference.

Unfortunately Comar had not updated the 41s with a new hull choosing instead to invest on a new line of cats (that seems to have been an error) and we have not a new hull to show those differences but several brands that made boats with similar hulls updated their models, that is the case with X yachts with the XP38 (some years already) or the new Dehler 42:

Off course, this design evolution refers only to this particular program: performance cruisers with racing potential in ORC and IRC.

What makes my boat particular, besides the fact of being mine, is being a performance cruiser with racing potential with a very good cruising interior plus some particularities like a forward sailing loker and an unusual storage space on boats of this type, not the type of hull itself.

the use of the term "state of the art" by Polux is so misleading and reflects his opinion, not the actual facts of boat design. And other than lightness, that which makes a hull fast and comfortable downwind often makes it slower and uncomfortable upwind, and vice versa. Compromises abound....

I guess you did not understood and I hope the post above makes it clear. There are not a single state of the art continuum for all type of sailing boats but a state of the art regarding any giving type designed to fulfill a program.

That has nothing to do with lightness. There are a state of the art in what regards medium weight main market cruisers and I had already give some examples of recent boats that qualify as such like the Halberg Rassy 44 or the Gunfleet 58
and I can give you more like the Sunbeam 41.1 and many others:

You are very repetitive in your arguments, ok, I get 2 pogos in the shop last season, and both owners rounding the 30, teens? well heck no, but not old by any mean,...

You certainly know that Pogo makes race boats (much before making cruising boats) and regarding cruising boats has making them on the last 15 years but regarding the boats I am talking about, the 10.50, the 12.50 and the 50 only on the last 10 years, for the smaller much less for the two last ones.

The owners that I know have 12.50 and as I said are around 50 or older. Here you have a photo of a owner of a Pogo 50, the older guy on the right: he does not appear to be 30

So, of what Pogos are you talking about? the ones that passed on your shipyard?

Anyway having them in your shipyard proves my point: For the ones that sail them they are voyage boats. Not many around but several have passed by a small shipyard on the other side of the pond!!!!! For that to happen it can only mean that the comparatively few that are around voyage a lot.

Anyway having them in your shipyard proves my point: For the ones that sail them they are voyage boats. Not many around but several have passed by a small shipyard on the other side of the pond!!!!! For that to happen it can only mean that the comparatively few that are around voyage a lot.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"